If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote
> I didn't mean to quote CR as gospel, only that it was consistent with > other findings. They have shown abysmal testing ideas on occasion, I > agree. The "jerk the wheel, slam on the brakes, and let everything go" > testing procedure on a '78 Horizon/Omni sent the car careening down the > test track with the wheels bouncing from lock to lock by themselves. > They downgraded the car as "too sensitive" for our roads. Funny thing > is, it was later found that most cars have this reaction to such > bizarre treatment which they concocted for this test. I had one of > these for several years, and the handling was the only thing Chrysler > DIDN'T fail on! > > The lack of start-ups is the the weakest part of CR's test in '96. > Never the less, they did help show that for stop 'n go driving in > average temperatures, synthetic didn't bring much to the table despite > the added costs. In 1996, CR ended up having data on only one engine for the synthetic oil. They changed this engine's synthetic oil every 12k miles. The other engines tested had ordinary engine oil, changed at intervals of 3k miles or 6k miles. Data was taken until all engines had 60k miles on them. The comments on the synth oil: "The [engine with synthetic oil] fared no worse than the three whose oil had been changed at 6000-mile intervals." In its recommendations, CR said, "Even the expensive synthetics... worked no better than conventional motor oils in our taxi tests, but they're worth considering for extreme driving conditions--high ambient temperatures and high engine load or very cold temperatures." This recommendation does not quite make sense to me. If one has to change synthetic oil half as often as conventional oil, then one is likely saving money. > If synthetic brought any dramatic improvement, the > oil manufacturers would stop selling synthetic like snake oil, and > would show us meaningful quantitative data and photos. I think it's out there. Many a driver here, for example, is using synthetic and changing comfortably at a much higher interval than with conventional oil. It's not proof positive. But I've read enough that I'm convinced synthetic is a good way to go for a new car and possibly some older cars. |
Ads |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
E24 Six Series - Future Classic? | Paddington | BMW | 22 | April 6th 05 12:05 AM |
FUEL-CELLS = FUTURE cars, Hydrogen = future whatever you say about my stupidity | Marco Licetti | Technology | 0 | March 26th 05 06:20 PM |
FUEL CELL - HYDROGEN FUTURE | Mark Levitski | Technology | 20 | March 24th 05 04:22 PM |
Ford's Future Engine Lineup Goes 1960's? | Patrick | Ford Mustang | 9 | November 24th 04 04:07 PM |
Pogosticks will replace cars in the future | Tom-Alex Soorhull | General | 0 | May 15th 04 10:52 PM |